NYPD bypassed facial recognition ban to ID pro-Palestinian student protester

How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?

Considering our government’s practices that most people are not even aware of leading up to WWI and WWI, in addition to the ones people are a bit more aware of regarding the anti-war, pro-peace movements leading up to Vietnam, not to mention what we were forced and willingly gave up following 9/11; most likely the government will abuse us and destroy the very few rights we have in theory.

I am 100% sure of this because the government has been 100% consistent and 100% abusive about this, 100% of the time.

Even the Civil War was clearly orchestrated and the people were abused and not just rights, but the very core Constitution was essentially destroyed and nullified, and what we’ve had since is nothing more than an abusive invalidated social contract upheld my sheer force, delusion, and bribing. The delusion and bribery part being what keeps people from realizing that.

Quite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

Curious why this is downvoted?

I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.

Because the "fire" excuse is a favorite of those who like the 1A when it protects them.

> Curious why this is downvoted?

Probably people reading the article title without reading the headline, not realizing that that it's not only literally about shouting in movie theaters.

But tbh most commenters/voters on this site are reflexively imperialist, which is not surprising for a forum run by (and for!) capitalists in the imperial core. That's doubtless a big factor as well.

Everybody feels the need to defend government overreach when it’s in their favour. The most famous example is any non-libertarian political leaning with free speech, but it was the same deal with the “left” complaining about Chevron v. USA being overturned when their guy was in power.

Yeah. It's not cool to be principled anymore, I guess...

This guy was accused of hurling a rock at a protester, it seems we are trying to defend the right to peaceful protest?

Like, this guy was identified off video of him throwing a rock at a protester that hit them in the face. By all accounts this is someone who is trying to violently suppress peoples rights. That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society, no matter how many waxing words try to twist him into being a "protester violated in his rights".

It’s the same basic thing as a spear being the same as a nuclear weapon. “They both kill people!”

Walking around with a photo versus walking around with a hundred million photos and asking everyone simultaneously should not be considered about the basic same thing.

This is what happens when AIPAC are allowed to fund our elected officials.

I don't read it as a peaceful protest issue, I read it as police are breaking privacy laws over a Palestinian protestor specifically; as far as we know they aren't doing this to investigate other violent crime in NYC. I agree this is sloppy policework and an unnecessary loss to society as a result.

>I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.

You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?

That's a separate issue. The US is an exception where evidence that is collected illegally (see 'fruit of the poisonous tree' - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree ) is not allowed in court. Thus, US law enforcements have come up with many creative means (like Parallel Construction - https://restorethe4th.com/our-new-brief-on-parallel-construc... ) to hide the fact that evidence was collected illegally. If you want justice to be done in the US, you want US law enforcement to comply with the law. Otherwise it could result in a miscarriage of justice - the guilty may escape because of police misconduct or innocents may be persecuted by the violation of their rights. This loophole used seems to be the grey area of the law. But loopholes too are slippery slopes in the law and shouldn't exist.

No? I would defend the first example too, which is why I specified the idea rather than the letter (the 1A). Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? That I think they're an asshole is irrelevant.

It is very bad to throw spears at people, despite the existence of nuclear weapons.

Then you should read the article.

Self defense isn't "you killed 1,200 people of our people so we're going to kill 60,000+ of your people (majority of which are children), destroy any all your hospitals and educational centers and prevent basics like food, water and medical supplies from getting to you."

At what point do you listen to humanitarian organizations and the UN? Amazing that you think 24 people is a genocide but not 60,000+.

I did. I believe this sort of stuff to be, at least morally, a violation of the 4A. It's no secret that the anti-Israel protests have gotten an inordinate amount of attention from the law relative to any harm caused, and overstepping bounds like this even to catch actual criminals (as happened here) isn't worth the price paid in liberty.

My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.

The fact that you can do it in a larger scale is the problem

I don't get why this is downvoted. I'm gonna guess it's because of "attempted"...

> That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society

There'a a balance though. I think that allowing police misconduct would be a larger loss to society.

When the state loses winable criminal cases because of police misconduct, it should be motivation at multiple levels to avoid such misconduct in the future.

I definitely see both sides in this... it's a bad use of resources, that I'm not completely convinced police should be barred from all access to, if it exists... on the flip side, the context of protecting an a-hole throwing rocks at a protest irks me as well.

I'm actually against parallel construction and feel that is far more dangerous than a lot of other activities in that it literally prevents you from knowing your true accuser in terms of laying out a defense/confrontation in court.

This whole story is just full of bad guys all around to a large extent.

The police should follow the rules laid out for them. If they don't, I would very much like to see them in prison.

What point of mine do you think you are attacking? The parent comment said that these rights were being given up "in order to squash anti-war sentiment". This was wrong on two counts.

a) The rights were preserved, the assaulter walks free on account of the NYPD's misconduct. The rock throwers have zero cause to be upset, the law protected them from the police overreach successfully.

b) The student was not charged with "anti-war sentiment". He was charged with assault, for throwing rocks at people.

I've been pretty consistent in terms of supporting people saying things and even expressing views I find abhorrent.

I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.

Okay and? They still bypassed a ban to do that. I guess we can just bypass any law, checks and balances whenever we really feel like someone might have committed a crime.

Again, this isn't self defense. Maybe you're just not familiar with what self defense is. Self defense is not going to another country and murdering civilians en masse. Calling 60,000 deaths collateral damage is pure insanity. If China nuked HK and claimed self defense would you have the same sympathy?

It's comically to talk about International Law when Israel has so many violations that Netanyahu has a warrant for his arrest by the ICC. It's also incredibly convenient that the IDF indiscriminately bombs and shoots civilians and civilian structures and claims they were Hamas. Including journalists. The cherry on top is preventing anyone else from confirming it. The IDF has continually done this. Claimed all houses are secret ICBM sites and that all civilians in other countries are terrorists. With zero evidence and when they are proven factually wrong they say some captain screwed up and that they will investigate. Yet it keeps happening.

Every civilian in Gaza is starving and cannot get any aid at all because Israel is denying all foreign aid or distribution. These are text book conditions of genocide. I look forward to the future when these atrocities are finally acknowledged. But I have no doubt that will be after the people responsible are long gone sadly.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. If someone is being an asshole on a mailing list, I don't think it's a free speech issue to remove them, and I took that example in context to mean you were saying all conservative gripes were non-issues like that.

>Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me?

Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.

But I don't get the two sides here. From what I understood, the police aren't allowed to use facial recognition. I mean at that point, why not just allow the cops to search without warrants, and do whatever they have to do to catch bad guys?

Like I can totally see the potential debate about if this type of ban should be in place. Sure! But the fact is, that's the current situation. The police can't, and shouldn't, just ignore or bypass rules if they feel like they're too limiting. The police should have basically 0 say (a part from voting) in what the rules they have to follow are.

If I start deciding to ignore laws and rules that I don't like, that would probably be a crime. So why should the police be able to do the same?

It is self-defense by any means.

You might want to argue that it is unfair as a revenge or something?

The US actively supports Israel financially and militaristically. That's the difference. Those are my tax dollars killing innocent children over there in Gaza.

Oh it starts October 7th? How'd you choose that date?

I'm not suggesting they should bypass current laws. I do question if it should be against the law to check against an existing data source like facial recognition. One could have put the picture out to the press, and asked, "hey, do you know this person?" type of thing and gotten the same answer.

I get that it's a slippery slope and it is a bit invasive to even establish many of these databases... not to mention the license plate tracking, cell tracking, etc. I also don't like jerks throwing rocks at people.

Yes, but throwing a spear and detonating a nuclear weapon are not equal levels of violating. They're both on the spectrum, but there is still a big difference

Do you genuinely not see the difference to society between cops putting in footwork to find someone, and being able to instantly find anyone they want for any reason with nearly zero effort?

I don't see how the spectrum is relevant. Murdering one person is not as bad as murdering 100. Still a murderer.

You're of course correct, but it's a complex issue. See my other comment for details.

If you want to frame it like this it's out of the definition of virtually any legal definition of self defense.

Self defense usually implies a "reasonable" use of force, what's happening there hasn't been reasonable for more than a year now.

If someone points a gun at you you can kill them, that's self defense, if you burn their entire village down, track and kill their family members 3 generations up it's not self defense anymore

It's not attempted. Its executed. Below are the articles that define genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Worth remembering:

Saying that fruit of the poisonous tree is not admissible is a vast understatement of the complexity of this area of law.

In the context of criminal prosecution/litigation, there's an enormous difference between "murdering one person" vs "murdering 100". For limitless reasons!

Like, is a victim of life threatening domestic violence who shoots their abuser during an attack a "murderer"? Or is an abuser who killed their spouse in a rage a "murderer"? Obviously these are different and the prosecution/defense hash that out over a very, very long time.

Details matter. Ask any public defender.

Obviously mass murder is worse (and a more severe crime) than murdering one person, but I'm still lost as to what the existence of this spectrum has to do with the actual story. If you throw a rock at someone, being apprehended by the police is not the nuclear option.

Note that we're talking about murder because the comment that set this off tried to pass off "throwing spears" as benign comparatively. No it isn't!

You are conflating civil law with international law. In a civil context, my right to self defense is very weak. If my neighbor is stockpiling weapons, and announcing his intention to kill me, I am obligated to trust the deterrent of the state. The state has the monopoly on force. I could easily be killed by this person, but they would be prosecuted by the state, and this system defends me quite well. It is only when my life is in active danger that I am allowed to take proactive measures. If the person shoots me in the leg and drops his gun and starts running away. I'm not allowed to pick it up and kill him in response. That's the state's job (There's no chance I would vote to convict this man if I was on a jury to be frank, but that's the principle).

This is very different from the interstate case. If a state shoots another state in the leg and runs away, the only way to establish a deterrent is to shoot back. There is no police force to do it for me. This is the main diffference between civil law and international law.

> One could have put the picture out to the press, and asked, "hey, do you know this person?" type of thing and gotten the same answer.

There's no guarantee they would have done this or that they would have gotten the same answer, though, is kind of salient to the point. There's a chance they wouldn't, because you (hopefully) don't want to make someone look like a suspect to their entire community if their chances of being involved in a crime are low. And even if you do, there's a decent chance you wouldn't have gotten a reply -- especially if their loved ones believe they are innocent. And it would've alerted them and they would've had a higher chance to escape. Which is terrible thing for society if they're a genuine criminal, but a good thing when you're persecuting a non-criminal.

Probabilities and collateral damage matter. If you just treat everything that is "possible" uniformly, then you might as well claim that they COULD generate a random number and just happen to identify the person correctly by sheer luck, so who cares if they do anything to optimize that.

OK but then again look at a map of Palestine vs Israel territories over the years... Who's under "imminent threat"? Who's under "credible threat"? One could argue Palestine is defending from an illegal occupation and as such Israel couldn't even claim self defense, just like Russia can't claim self defense in Ukraine

Even in international self defense there are criterion and limits

Think of it like gun/taser safety -- even an empty gun is treated as a loaded gun because of the significant risks. These systems have well-documented histories of leading to false arrests and ruining lives and families. When the risks are destroying someone's life, why isn't it treated with similar caution?

The spectrum stuff is about the likelihood of harm was my interpretation. Obviously we shouldn't be throwing spears, but there's probabilistic side of it that doesn't exist with nukes, and there's a spectrum between all of that with various probabilities of extents of harm. So if the harms of using these technologies intrinsically carries similar probabilistic risks (false arrests, elevated charges, etc), why not treat it as a risky object worthy of kicking someone off the range? I'm reminded of situations of waiting for the rangemaster to walk away so you can do something stupid and risky.

Right I'm still commenting on this thread just to make it clear that I think nukes are bad too.

How is it not a war?

The state of war is any organized violence to achieve political goals that happens outside of a social contract.

Wars are two sided. I should have called it a massacre of Palestinian children by Israel, really.

I agree.

Several of the riots leading up to the breaking away of the colonies from the crown would make rock throwing look tame. They were rioting over something much less horrific than what is going on in Gaza. This pearl-clutching, accepting any level of enforcement against the mildest of accusations, I don’t know what to call it except anti-American.

Nothing about war makes it two sided.